Texas can lead in approaches to meeting emissions caps

State resources allow use of renewables, improved efficiency

By Daniel Cohan

July 9, 2014Updated: July 10, 2014 10:11am

Though it was the federal Environmental Protection Agency that proposed caps on climate-warming emissions from power plants, the impact on our air, health, water and energy markets will be determined right here in Texas for years to come after whatever rule becomes law.

That's because the EPA proposes to give states enormous flexibility in how to meet their assigned emissions caps. The Texas plan, and how utilities and consumers respond to that plan, will be what most affect our environment and economy.

The impact of the EPA's proposal on climate-warming emissions is clear, cutting them 30 percent by 2030. But power plants do far more than contribute to warming globally. They rank second only to vehicles as sources of air pollution and second only to agriculture as consumers of water.

Translator

To read this article in one of Houston's most-spoken languages, click on the button below.

Editorial Cartoons

And, of course, power plants provide the reliable and affordable power needed for a thriving economy. How these outcomes are affected will depend on the mix of four options used to meet the Texas emissions caps: efficiency, renewables, natural gas and carbon capture.

Efficiency includes consumers using less electricity, and power plants improving their efficiency. Both approaches reduce fuel combustion, thereby reducing all the water and air impacts of power generation.

Texans use about 17 percent more electricity than the national average, leaving untapped opportunities for reducing demand. Efficiency can yield net savings on electricity bills and ensure reliability of power in peak periods.

Renewable electricity options have plummeted in price in recent years. Wind and geothermal are cost-competitive with other options for new capacity. Solar remains somewhat costlier, but provides the greatest output on hot summer days when power is most needed and most valuable.

Texas leads the nation in wind power, but lags in capitalizing on its abundant solar and geothermal resources.

Natural gas can provide adjustable power output, making it ideal for balancing oscillations in renewable supply and consumer demand. Though cleaner than coal, natural gas electricity entails substantial emissions and water use.

Hydraulic fracturing has enhanced the affordability and supply of natural gas, but it is ultimately a finite resource demanded for many purposes, including home heating and chemical manufacture.

The final option is to keep burning coal but capture its carbon. Though carbon capture is technically possible, under current technologies it requires huge amounts of energy.

This not only makes carbon capture expensive, but also means air pollution, water consumption and ash disposal could worsen as more fuel is needed to generate the same amount of electricity.

Each of these four approaches can contribute to Texas achieving its carbon cap. But each has different effects on our local environment and economy, with the earlier options like efficiency tending to yield the greatest environmental benefits at the lowest costs.

States that thoughtfully promote triple-win solutions minimizing emissions, water consumption and energy costs are likely to fare best under the EPA's proposal. This is especially important for Texas, which faces the triple challenges of air-quality nonattainment, drought and peak-power availability.

The EPA's proposal is not final and might be litigated, including by Texas. But legal experts see an overturn as unlikely, especially after a 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court majority last month reaffirmed EPA's authority to regulate climate-warming gases from large emitters.

Whether Texas leaders accept the scientific consensus on climate change or support the EPA's proposal, something like it will probably become law.

It is thus crucial and urgent that all of us - consumers and producers, industry and environmental groups, state government and local, academics and laypersons - work together to ensure Texas designs the most sensible and innovative plan to promote an environmentally friendly approach for achieving emissions limits.

The more expeditiously we act, the more time utilities will have to implement the best possible approaches to meeting the state plan.

As a state rich in wind, sun and natural gas, and with abundant opportunities to improve efficiency, Texas can be a leader in sensible approaches to meeting emissions caps.

The choices are ours. The affordability, reliability and sustainability of our electricity depend on us choosing wisely.

Cohan is an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University.